The first definition defines an atheist as someone who maintains that gods do not exist. The second defines an atheist as someone who is not a theist.

The distinction is relatively unimportant in everyday usage since most of us who are nontheists will argue that gods do not exist. But when you're arguing with a philosopher you need to pick nits since philosophical arguments often turn on definitions. No intelligent atheist wants to be trapped into arguing that gods do not exist since that's like trying to "prove the negative" and we all know that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something.

That's why the correct definition of atheist is a person who is not a theist. This is the definition that most atheists use to define their position when it's important to be philosophical. We will readily admit that we cannot prove the nonexistence of gods. There will always remain a remote possibility that some kind of gods exist somewhere. Even though we might be 99.99% certain that gods are a delusion, when talking to philosophers we need to keep reminding them that 99.99% is not 100%.

There's a class of philosophers (professional and amateur) who prefer to be called agnostics. As a general rule, those philosophers use the restrictive definition of atheist and that's why they deny that they are atheists. They do not seem to be sympathetic to any other definition of atheist since that might require them to admit they are atheists, as well as agnostics.

Is it your position that I'm guilty of "intellectual bankruptcy" by proposing a definition that better reflects my position and that of many other atheists?

I am saying that you are either engaging in creative humpty dumptyism or displaying a severe lack of intellectual curiosity in failing to realize that there are perfectly good words which already exist that might better capture your position, such as theological noncognitivism or simply nontheist.

How would you react to one of your students trying to redefine the meaning of exothermic - or redefining natural selection to incorporate orthogenesis? I hope you can see how silly that is.

Your infatuation with the term Atheist is blinding you to its actual meaning - and your blind desire to redefine that meaning is undermining any claim to an intellectual high ground.

Joe Agnostic is saying that there is one, and only one, valid definition of atheist and that definition requires atheists to deny the existence of gods. According to Joe, attempts to "redefine" atheist are not proper. In other words, Joe insists that atheist stick to the definition he prefers, which means that all atheists are idiots for claiming to have proved the negative.

Ergo, the only intellectually valid position is agnosticism. Nobody can be an agnostic atheist because agnosticism and atheism are incompatible by (his) definition.1

Joe insists that modern atheists are trying to change the meaning of a commonly accepted definition. (I don't know if that's the position of John Wilkins.) I don't know enough about the history of the word to know if Joe is correct, although the article on atheism in Wikipedia suggest that both meanings are quite old.

However, regardless of historical precedence, it is perfectly okay to promote a definition that reflects modern thought on the topic. We do this all the time in science—the redefinition of "evolution" and the refinement of terms like "natural selection" are perfect examples.

I suspect that the resistance we encounter from agnostics has more to do with their reluctance to become associated with a word that has negative consequences in some societies than with any real intellectual high ground. If I were being mean (heaven forbid!) I'd even say that Joe is the one who's a bit blind.

Let's close with an example of a famous theist who tries to teach atheists the "proper" definition of atheism. He seems a bit frustrated because his opponent won't jump into his trap.

To me this sounds just as silly as Joe Agnostic.

1. It's interesting that these hard-core agnostics are far more likely to criticize the position of atheists than theists.

28 comments
:

It's hard to redefine a word that already has a concrete definition. You might redefine common usage, but definition stays - a thesim; to be without theism (or without belief in gods)

The reason for your lack of belief might be many, but lacking belief is all that is meant by atheism. Any other definition is adding to, not changing. Atheism does not address whether gods exist or not. It simply states that the atheist does not believe in gods.

Agnosticism does address whether goes exist in that the agnostic does not know whether gods exist or not. More literally, a gnostic means without knowledge. In this case without knowledge of whether gods exist or not.

The former implies knowledge and a search for the truth, the latter simply means you haven't found enough information to even make a decision.

Those who claim agnosticism is the wiser position appear to be saying that ignorance is the wiser position.

One can claim that the evidence against gods is unconvincing but yet the evidence for gods is also unconvincing. If you conclude from this to be agnostic you have missed the point. Atheists are not saying there is no god, come look, we have searched everywhere and there is no god. Atheists are saying that those claiming to have evidence of gods are whackaloons with out credibility. Their claims of supernatural beings are bunkem. The conclusion is that there is no reason to even begin thinking there are supernatural beings. Agnosticism is simply the capitulation that you won't investigate or access the available information.

To clarify, If I claimed that there are invisible robots who will do your bidding if you talk to them in a certain voice and believe in them, the onus would be on me to prove it. Well the claims of supernatural beings rests on the shoulders of believers. You do not have to prove that my invisible robots do not exist to be arobotism. Saying that your are agnostic about invisible robots is then simply a cop-out.

Even if there is an infinitesimally small chance that there are invisible robots, counting that chance as equal to evidence is just intellectually lazy. It's no different than saying you don't eat chicken wings because there is a chance they might turn you into the swamp thing.

Refusing to say more than I don't know is very lazy when the evidence and argument is fully available to you.

These binary philosophical definitions are bullshit. To say you are either "with knowledge" or "without knowledge" is a false dichotomy. Therefore I reject their use.

And yes, both the newborn infant and the rational skepticist are atheists.

Furthermore as skepticists we should reason quantitatively. I.e. we should first give an upper bound for the probability of some theistic entity's existance (e.g. a catholic god) and compare that to other probabilities in everyday life.

Second we show how to get an upper bound for a different brand of theism.

Third we give an upper bound for transparent what-if scenarios, such as deism.

Fourth we give the probability of atheism (zero length).

I think it should be doable using minimum description length estimation. If not in this generation, then in the next.

To add to what Anonymous said, atheism would seem to be the default position for claims of the supernatural, as it's been for well over one-hundred years--evidence-wise, god's existence is not the controversial topic it once was. Sure, there was a time when it made sense to be agnostic. But there have been significant historical landmarks (the scientific method: heliocentrism, meteorology, common descent, extinction events, the Holocaust, etc.) that've chipped away at the god hypothesis. As a side-note, for many born into a religious worldview, agnosticism is still a common step in intellectual development.

We've gathered enough knowledge about ourselves and the universe to confidently say there probably is no god, making "professional" agnostics intractable bores.

Modern agnosticism must presuppose an ultimate insolubility despite the glaring lack of evidence for theistic claims (and some good evidence against them).

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Years ago I used to define myself as agnostic. This was partly because I valued the idea of avoiding conflict around religion, and partly because, living in New Zealand, there is less theism and markedly less vocal theism than in many other places. The latter meant that I had little reason to carefully consider the validity of a distinction between agnosticism and atheism.

In the end, it was enough for me to simply reflect on the point that I wouldn't have called myself "agnostic" about anything else for which there was zero evidence - of which many absurd examples abound: invisible unicorns, zombies and so forth. The only logically consistent position was to redefine myself as "atheist".

No intelligent atheist wants to be trapped into arguing that gods do not exist since that's like trying to "prove the negative" and we all know that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something.

Well, there are certain kinds of negatives you can prove. Trivially, anything which is logically incoherent (e.g. married bachelors) can be conclusively said to not exist.

For everything else, we have to settle for showing that their existence is indistinguishable from their nonexistence (i.e. god answers prayers in a way that produces an outcome exactly like what you'd expect if he didn't answer prayers at all).

The Chinese for atheism is 无神论 - pronounced in pinyin wu2shen2lun4. A direct pronounciation would be "without a spirit theory". I quite like that definition!

I think pedants who insist words can only have one meaning are really missing out on the richness of language.

But even so find me an atheist who claims there is absolutely no God, no matter how it is defined. They only exist in the strawmen of religious apologetics.

I am perfectly happy to say to an evangelizing theist that I deny or disbelieve in God as defined by that theist!

With philosophers I am happy to revert to the more nuanced definition - because there you aren't being pulled into a bait and switch routine.

"There could be some sort of God, ergo Jesus" is the type of rhetoric you get from William Lane Craig, but does this really have any place in a respectable discussion.

Language allows for multiple meanings, nuance and resonances within words - pretending one particular definition is the true one, is as silly as claiming there is one true God.

Both definitions have their places; get over it!

John Wilkins is a defacto atheist, so is Richard Dawkins and, I presume, Larry Moran. The defacto part of that phrase is only important for pedants and philosophers. But because of the ambiguity in words I'm happy to put it in there, but really its not worth the angst it seems to cause!

I have no philosophy training so can't speak to the currency of the following concepts, but I note in Wikipedia under Agnosticism is the sub-definition: "Ignosticism - The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable".

With respect to “noncognitivist” it further states: "Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language, and specifically words like "god", are not cognitively meaningful...Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in".

So quite by chance I seem to have discovered what I am. And this was the point of my comment on the preceding thread where I wondered what the hell people even mean when they talk of god. One person didn’t like this because he thought it was a discussion killer. But, by not pointing out the absurdity of discussing matters without definition, we ultimately provide cover to the theist. It is when you dismantle the theist’s protective, vague supernatural language by asking rational, pointed questions, that it becomes clear the theist cannot define what it is he believes in, he just knows it is important to believe in something.

Anyhow, despite my new-found affinity for the terms Ignostic or theological noncognitivism, in common conversation I might still refer to myself as a strong atheist not because I have a clue of what this god thing is supposed to be, but merely as a conventional counter to the strong belief (in something or other) without evidence and that this “something or other” seems most likely to be a mere fabrication of humans.

When discussing about deism, I prefer to call myself a non-believer rather than an atheist, since the existance of a metaphysical creator seems to be an untestable claim. On the other hand, when discussing about the existance of the god of a specific religion (typically christianity), I strongly believe that the God of abrahamic religions doesn't exist with the same conviction I don't believe "Little Red Riding Hood" describes historical events.

The thing is, most of the time theists don't make that important distinction when discussing about the specific god of their religion, and start giving arguments for deism without connecting the dots with their specific theistic god. The result is that non-believers end discussing about two categories of god with somebody who thinks the discussion deals only with his particular flavor of "revealed" god.

No intelligent atheist wants to be trapped into arguing that gods do not exist since that's like trying to "prove the negative" and we all know that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something.

Except that my understanding is that at least the scientists amongst you deal in evidence not proof, proof being reserved for mathematics, metals and alcohol. As one of those nit-picking philosophers, David Hume, wrote

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

Or, as a well-known agnostic put it:

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.

You also write:

There's a class of philosophers (professional and amateur) who prefer to be called agnostics. As a general rule, those philosophers use the restrictive definition of atheist and that's why they deny that they are atheists. They do not seem to be sympathetic to any other definition of atheist since that might require them to admit they are atheists, as well as agnostics.

Except that both John Wilkins, who is a professional philosopher (although that shouldn't be held against him)and I, who am not, both admit to being atheist for all practical purposes. Even the coiner of the word 'agnostic' wrote:

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel.

Is there any difference between that and the fact that most atheists will grudgingly concede that, yes, strictly speaking, they are agnostic about the existence of a god or gods because they do not know for certain that they do not exist?

The difference seems to be whether, for rhetorical purposes, you want to project doubt or certainty.

"That's why the correct definition of atheist is a person who is not a theist."

You know better than that, Larry. For non-technical terms, there's no such thing as "the correct definition." Meaning derives from the way the word is used, and for "atheism", usage is all over the map.

"There's a class of philosophers (professional and amateur) who prefer to be called agnostics. As a general rule, those philosophers use the restrictive definition of atheist and that's why they deny that they are atheists."

I'll take that as indicating that you are continuing to miss the point that John Wilkins has been trying to make.

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

That's exactly the problem I'm addressing. There's a big difference between what we might say in the real world and what we say when dealing with a bunch of philosophers. It's one of the reasons why I'm worried about philosophy—it seems, in many cases, to be out of touch with reality.

When it comes to agnosticism we all have to admit that we are agnostic about gods, fairies, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can never prove that they do not exist. But here's the catch, we only have to admit this when talking to philosophers! In the real world it's quite acceptable to say that gods don't exist because the probability of being right is greater than 99.99%.

It's troubling to me that one has to be so nit picky when discussing philosophy even though I understand that strict adherence to logic demands it.

That's one point. The other point has to do with the implicit definition of atheism in the quotation from Bertrand Russell. He implies that to be an atheist is to claim that you have proof of the non-existence of gods.

I argue that this definition of atheism is incorrect, precisely because it is indefensible and illogical. The correct definition of atheism is, in my opinion, the lack of belief in gods.

If Bertrand Russel had adopted that definition then he could have proudly stood before a philosophic audience and proclaimed that he was an atheist AND an agnostic.

You don't have to adopt my preferred definition of atheism but you do have to recognize that it's a widely held position these days. When you proclaim, in 2011, that you are an agnostic but not an atheist, then you have an obligation to point out what definition of atheism you are using. Ideally, you should take a position based on both definitions.

Larry Moran wrote:"When it comes to agnosticism we all have to admit that we are agnostic about gods, fairies, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can never prove that they do not exist."

But that latter claim is simply false (the whole point of my earlier reference to Pasquarello). We CAN prove that they do not exist, to the extent that they are defined well enough to support an existence claim to begin with. If not, there is no reason to take the existence claim as reasonable at all: you are not agnostic with respect to it, but hostile: it is a stupid, ill-formed claim, and not worthy of further discussion.

@DKI don't find it completely unworkable. A gnostic seems to be someone who claims to have a special knowledge of god. So, a gnostic is not just a theist but one claiming to have a special (often secret) knowledge source for his belief.

An agnostic denies that such a knowledge (in the positive or negative) is at all possible. In other words, an agnostic will start an argument with someone claiming his (dis)belief is based on special knowledge, but not with someone who only (dis)believes without claiming a special knowledge source for that (dis)believe.

An atheist, on the other hand, will start an argument with any theist, gnostic or not.

On second thought, I find the inclusion of gnosticism into the conception of positions not only workable but enlightening. Let "gnu atheism" stand for "gnostic atheism", that is, atheists that claim their disbelieve is based on knowledge, and you see what the current controversy is all about.

Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.

This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes are the probable or actual evolution steps between physical states ordained for natural selection.

If you follow dictionary.com's definition, the one that you propose means to have a belief, I would like you to notice that it has disbelief in its definition. If you look up disbelief, you will find that it is not an assertion of the contrary.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.